Trending Now
  • An LFJ Conversation with Jason Levine, Partner at Foley & Lardner LLP
  • Joint Liability Proposals Threaten Consumer Legal Funding
Commercial Special Features

Flying High: LCM Lands Portfolio Funding Deal with Aviation Company

June 21, 2019

Flying High: LCM Lands Portfolio Funding Deal with Aviation Company

One of LCM’s key areas of focus since its IPO has been the origination and execution of corporate portfolio transactions. The recent announcement of a portfolio funding partnership with a major aviation company, in which LCM will finance 38 worldwide disputes and contractual claims arising from the operations of the company for an initial 5-year rolling period, underscores the funder’s commitment to its corporate portfolio funding strategy. The transaction was led by Executive Vice Chairman Nick Rowles-Davies, who leads LCM’s EMEA team, comprised of some of the most experienced practitioners in the industry at corporate portfolio funding. Thanks to Rowles-Davies’ leadership and the team’s expertise, this is the second corporate portfolio transaction funded by LCM in past 12 months, and the first originating from the global cooperation agreement with a leading international law firm announced in March. The first of LCM’s portfolio transactions was announced in October 2018, and was in the building and construction sector. LCM remains one of only a handful of funders to have completed such a transaction type. The funder also currently has eight other portfolio deals in the pipeline. Perhaps no better evidence could be proffered of litigation funding’s growing awareness and understanding amongst corporate clients – at least within certain capital-intensive industries. As Rowles-Davies puts it: “Everyone has heard of ‘litigation finance,’ but they don’t necessarily understand what it entails. To many, it still means bringing big claims against corporates and they don’t appreciate that it is a form of financing that can support a company by monetizing its legal assets, removing the risk of litigation, increasing EBITDA and keeping costs off the balance sheet. Some sectors are certainly more aware of the benefits available through the use of litigation funding and these are typically businesses in sectors that are high-volume, low-margin; for example, aviation, construction and outsourcing.” By financing multiple claims at once, funders like LCM reduce their risk profile, which results in a more attractive pricing structure for the client than when cases are funded on a one-off basis (one-off cases carry binary risk, therefore the cost of capital is higher). On this latest transaction, LCM has maintained the optionality to extend the number of cases it will finance, as well as the cumulative size of the financing available. “When we are structuring corporate portfolios for our clients, we look to be as flexible as possible and try to directly address the problem that they are looking to solve by providing a bespoke solution,” Rowles-Davies adds. “This provides businesses with complete optionality as to how they fund their disputes, moving to a position of using funding out of choice, rather than necessity. This is totally different from a single case situation where often a distressed and impecunious party is being funded.” London-based law firm Clyde & Co. helped arrange the funding partnership between LCM and the unnamed airline. This type of arrangement underscores the win-win nature of a partnership between a dedicated funder and an individual law firm. According to Rowles-Davies, this type of partnership “is not that common, but I suspect we will see more arrangements like it as funding becomes more widely used.” Rowles-Davies is quick to point out, however, that LCM has relationships with multiple law firms, and that agreements such as its partnership with Clyde & Co. don’t guarantee exclusivity. “This is about picking your partners carefully – we want to work with people who understand how LCM operates and what we’re looking for, and it takes time to develop that understanding.”

Commercial

View All
Commercial Legal Innovation

LSC Showcases Access-to-Justice Tech at San Antonio ITC

By John Freund |

The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) brought the access-to-justice conversation squarely into the technology arena with its 26th annual Innovations in Technology Conference (ITC), held this week in San Antonio. Drawing nearly 750 registered attendees from across the legal, business, and technology communities, the conference highlighted how thoughtfully deployed technology can expand civil legal assistance for low-income Americans while maintaining ethical and practical guardrails.

Legal Services Corporation reports that this year’s ITC convened attorneys, legal technologists, court staff, pro bono leaders, academics, and students at the Grand Hyatt San Antonio River Walk for three days of programming focused on the future of legal services delivery. The conference featured 56 panels—16 streamed online and freely accessible—covering topics ranging from artificial intelligence and cybersecurity to court technology, data-driven decision-making, and pro bono innovation.

LSC President Ron Flagg framed the event as a collaborative effort to ensure technology serves people rather than replaces human judgment. Emphasizing that technology is “not the answer by itself,” Flagg underscored its role as a critical tool when grounded in the real needs of communities seeking civil legal help. The conference opened with a keynote from journalist and author David Pogue, setting the tone for candid discussions about both the promise and limitations of emerging technologies.

A notable evolution this year was the introduction of five structured programming tracks—AI beginner, AI advanced, IT operations, client intake, and self-help tools—allowing attendees to tailor their experience based on technical familiarity and organizational needs. The event concluded with hands-on workshops addressing cybersecurity incident response, improving AI accuracy and reliability, change management for staff resilience, and user experience evaluation in legal tech.

Beyond the conference itself, ITC reinforced LSC’s broader leadership in access-to-justice technology, including its Technology Initiative Grants, AI Peer Learning Lab, and its recent report, The Next Frontier: Harnessing Technology to Close the Justice Gap. Senior program officer Jane Ribadeneyra emphasized the dual focus on informed leadership decisions and practical tools that directly support frontline legal services staff handling matters like eviction, domestic violence, and disaster recovery.

For the litigation funding and legal finance community, ITC’s themes highlight a growing intersection between technology, access to justice, and capital deployment—raising questions about how funders may increasingly support tech-enabled legal service models alongside traditional case funding.

Commercial

Litigation Financiers Organize on Capitol Hill

By John Freund |

The litigation finance industry is mobilizing its defenses after nearly facing extinction through federal legislation last year. In response to Senator Thom Tillis's surprise attempt to impose a 41% tax on litigation finance profits, two attorneys have launched the American Civil Accountability Alliance—a lobbying group dedicated to fighting back against efforts to restrict third-party funding of lawsuits.

As reported in Bloomberg Law, co-founder Erick Robinson, a Houston patent lawyer, described the industry's collective shock when the Tillis measure came within striking distance of passing as part of a major tax and spending package. The proposal ultimately failed, but the close call exposed the $16 billion industry's vulnerability to legislative ambush tactics. Robinson noted that the measure appeared with only five weeks before the final vote, giving stakeholders little time to respond before the Senate parliamentarian ultimately removed it on procedural grounds.

The new alliance represents a shift toward grassroots advocacy, focusing on bringing forward voices of individuals and small parties whose cases would have been impossible without funding. Robinson emphasized that state-level legislation now poses the greater threat, as these bills receive less media scrutiny than federal proposals while establishing precedents that can spread rapidly across jurisdictions.

The group is still forming its board and hiring lobbyists, but its founders are clear about their mission: ensuring that litigation finance isn't quietly regulated out of existence through misleading rhetoric about foreign influence or frivolous litigation—claims Robinson dismisses as disconnected from how funders actually evaluate cases for investment.

Commercial

ISO’s ‘Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure’ May Be Unenforceable

By John Freund |

The insurance industry has introduced a new policy condition entitled "Litigation Funding Mutual Disclosure" (ISO Form CG 99 11 01 26) that may be included in liability policies starting this month. The condition allows either party to demand mutual disclosure of third-party litigation funding agreements when disputes arise over whether a claim or suit is covered by the policy. However, the condition faces significant enforceability challenges that make it largely unworkable in practice.

As reported in Omni Bridgeway, the condition is unenforceable for several key reasons. First, when an insurer denies coverage and the policyholder commences coverage litigation, the denial likely relieves the policyholder of compliance with policy conditions. Courts typically hold that insurers must demonstrate actual and substantial prejudice from a policyholder's failure to perform a condition, which would be difficult to establish when coverage has already been denied.

Additionally, the condition's requirement for policyholders to disclose funding agreements would force them to breach confidentiality provisions in those agreements, amounting to intentional interference with contractual relations. The condition is also overly broad, extending to funding agreements between attorneys and funders where the insurer has no privity. Most problematically, the "mutual" disclosure requirement lacks true mutuality since insurers rarely use litigation funding except for subrogation claims, creating a one-sided obligation that borders on bad faith.

The condition appears designed to give insurers a litigation advantage by accessing policyholders' private financial information, despite overwhelming judicial precedent that litigation finance is rarely relevant to case claims and defenses. Policyholders should reject this provision during policy renewals whenever possible.